Author Topic: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report (Read 7807 times)

tdrev123 · « **Reply #165 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:08:42 PM »

Traditionalism isn't about going back to 1920.

It is about going back to a world where Christ's church reigns supreme as it did in the middle ages.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #166 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:11:37 PM »

Quote from: St Peter on January 21, 2020, 05:10:26 PM

You assumed the first photo from 1900 I posted was "some secular non-catholics". How do you know this? It seems to me you presume all too easily.

"The idea that the SSPX would have paraded boys in shorts in its RC Report America in the 1990’s is absurd, since at that time they were also teaching shorts were not appropriate."

So you think the sspx in 1990 more modest than the Catholic Church of the early 1900s?

St. Mary's roman Catholic school, Otis Indiana, circa 1900

St. Patrick's Catholic School, Illinois, circa 1910

Kenilworth Roman Catholic School, UK, circa 1926

St. Nicholas Ukranian Catholic Church, NJ, circa 1909

First holy communion circa about 1905

I have a theory on why short pants (as opposed to long pants) were in fashion. In the early part of the 20th century many boys wore short pants, not shorts as they are called today. It seems to me that it’s possible that the reason for this fashion was practical. All of us who have large families with boys know how often they out grow their pants. It certainly would be practical to make use of these short pants and to avoid having to buy new pants so often. I’m not saying that I agree with this fashion nor to the reason I’m suggesting.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #167 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:20:55 PM »

From the booklet "Those who serve God should not follow the fashions:"
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/those-who-serve-god-should-not-follow-the-fashions-part-1/

The Traditional Form of Dress
The few leaflets on modesty that can be found today generally say that for preserving purity, loose fitting pants are actually loose enough to conceal a woman’s form. However, one current little leaflet distributed by the Franciscan Friars of Mary Immaculate says something more. After presenting what is necessary for preserving purity, it goes on to state:

Quote

“The ideal form of dress for a woman is a modest blouse and dress extending close to the ankles. Men should wear loose fitting shirts and slacks 19.”

This ideal, it should be observed, is nothing more than the traditional form of dress for men and women approved in Christian society ever since males went from wearing robes to pants.* It should also be noted that throughout centuries, from Apostolic times until the 1920’s, Christian women, as a rule, did not wear such things as tight-fitting or sleeveless tops, miniskirts, pants or shorts. Rather, even though styles have greatly varied, they have generally worn loose fitting dresses extending near or to the ankle. This is true even when women took part in activities such as riding on a horse or donkey (as Our Lady did en route to Bethlehem at the dawn of the Christian Era) or working in the fields (like St. Maria Goretti and her mother at the dawn of the 20th Century), though such activities are done more conveniently in pants or shorts. The length of garment was indeed fitting, since in the Book of Isaiah God refers to a woman’s bare legs as “nakedness” and “shame” (Is. 47:2-3).
....
A Positive Effect on Society
Often in our day, good Catholics are rightly heard complaining because they frequently see priests going about without their cassocks and collars, and religious sisters without their traditional habits. What a great effect their outward appearance has upon us! Yes, outward appearance produces such great effects, that Pope Pius XII exclaimed: “It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization38.
Therefore, by becoming zealous in adhering to the traditional form of dress, Catholics will have a positive, moralizing effect upon the pagan world around them. Thus, they will work to reverse the Cultural Revolution and restore Christian Civilization.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #168 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:21:09 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on January 21, 2020, 06:11:37 PM

I have a theory on why short pants (as opposed to long pants) were in fashion. In the early part of the 20th century many boys wore short pants, not shorts as they are called today. It seems to me that it’s possible that the reason for this fashion was practical. All of us who have large families with boys know how often they out grow their pants. It certainly would be practical to make use of these short pants and to avoid having to buy new pants so often. I’m not saying that I agree with this fashion nor to the reason I’m suggesting.

Not only do boys grow out of their pants, but my boys invariably shred the knees on their pants. We did the same when I was in Novus Ordo school. This was so common that they actually issues a few knee patches with each pair of uniform pants.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #169 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:21:46 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on January 21, 2020, 03:33:45 PM

I don't wear any of the types of shorts depicted in your picture...and I don't ever wear flip flops - because they're gαy.

Bishop Williamson has an "opinion" on shorts...that's all it is man - an opinion.

Bp. Williamson said that shorts are the attire of children, that men should not wear them. It is a fact that boys were the only ones that wore shorts and when they reached like 10 they were proud that they were old enough to wear pants. That changed in the 1960's. That is what Bp. Willamson said, that shorts on men is a novelty and just a bad fashion of our times.

An opinion is your concluding that flip flops are for sodomites.

When I was young I wore bell bottoms, platform shoes , Nik-Nik shirts and a gold chain with an Italian horn pendant. I look back on it now and prealize I was just a young fool following the fashions of the day. Same goes with my listening to the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Grand Funk, Santana, The Allman Biothers…. , it was something stupid that I did when I was young. Those shorts and flip flops on hairy legged youths and older men is just another stupid fashion of this day. One day they will see it for what it is, or maybe they never will, just like the 70 year old idiots that still listen to 1960's rock & roll and jump in the sack with the old Woodstock free love hippy ladies at the 55 and over retirement community. The highest STD rates are in those 55 and over communities. They never learned anything.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #170 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:37:49 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 21, 2020, 06:20:55 PM

From the booklet "Those who serve God should not follow the fashions:"
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/those-who-serve-god-should-not-follow-the-fashions-part-1/

The Traditional Form of Dress
The few leaflets on modesty that can be found today generally say that for preserving purity, loose fitting pants are actually loose enough to conceal a woman’s form. However, one current little leaflet distributed by the Franciscan Friars of Mary Immaculate says something more. After presenting what is necessary for preserving purity, it goes on to state:This ideal, it should be observed, is nothing more than the traditional form of dress for men and women approved in Christian society ever since males went from wearing robes to pants.* It should also be noted that throughout centuries, from Apostolic times until the 1920’s, Christian women, as a rule, did not wear such things as tight-fitting or sleeveless tops, miniskirts, pants or shorts. Rather, even though styles have greatly varied, they have generally worn loose fitting dresses extending near or to the ankle. This is true even when women took part in activities such as riding on a horse or donkey (as Our Lady did en route to Bethlehem at the dawn of the Christian Era) or working in the fields (like St. Maria Goretti and her mother at the dawn of the 20th Century), though such activities are done more conveniently in pants or shorts. The length of garment was indeed fitting, since in the Book of Isaiah God refers to a woman’s bare legs as “nakedness” and “shame” (Is. 47:2-3).
....
A Positive Effect on Society
Often in our day, good Catholics are rightly heard complaining because they frequently see priests going about without their cassocks and collars, and religious sisters without their traditional habits. What a great effect their outward appearance has upon us! Yes, outward appearance produces such great effects, that Pope Pius XII exclaimed: “It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization38.
Therefore, by becoming zealous in adhering to the traditional form of dress, Catholics will have a positive, moralizing effect upon the pagan world around them. Thus, they will work to reverse the Cultural Revolution and restore Christian Civilization.

From Part II of the same booklet: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/those-who-serve-god-should-not-follow-the-fashions-part-2-of-2/

Standards for Men
Earlier in this booklet, St. Paul was quoted as saying that women should appear “in decent apparel; adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety” (1Tim. 2:9).
And although, as already mentioned, this is more important for women, St. Francis De Sales commenting on this passage does not hesitate to remark that “the same may be said of men” 4.”
Yes, men too must dress with proper Christian dignity. How overly casual they have become. It is not acceptable for Christian men to go about their daily business in sportswear or other scanty clothing that covers the body little more than the clothing of savages. Remember that missionaries throughout Church history in converting these savages, taught them to cover themselves according to Christian decency.
Although the Church has not provided a universal standard for men’s clothing, still, some guidelines can be found. In May 1946 the Canadian Bishops directed these words on modesty to men:
“Man himself does not escape from the inclination of exhibiting his flesh: some go in public, stripped to the waist, or in very tight pants or in very scanty bathing suits. They thus commit offences against the virtue of modesty. They may also be an occasion of sin (in thought or desire) for our neighbor 5.”
Certainly then, men must take care to avoid tight fitting clothes, short shorts, low-buttoned shirts, muscle shirts, and going shirtless. Because of their Christian dignity, for their everyday attire they should gladly adhere to the ideal (or traditional) form of dress for men: “Loose fitting shirts and slacks.” Long, loose fitting shorts are acceptable for sports, hiking and certain types of work.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #171 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:39:26 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on January 21, 2020, 03:33:45 PM

I don't wear any of the types of shorts depicted in your picture...and I don't ever wear flip flops - because they're gαy.

Bishop Williamson has an "opinion" on shorts...that's all it is man - an opinion.

Nor do we have any context around this reported opinion. Are there exceptions, conditions, distinctions? Would he even consider pants that just extended to below the knees to be "shorts"?

I'm just looking for a rational argument.

So far we have:
1) Bishops Williamson said boys should not wear them (no context around what he said and it's his opinion for reasons unknown to us).
2) They're effeminate either because of the style or because they turn boys into sissies. [I don't buy this.]
3) "Shorts" = "bad" (just like with Trump: Orange Man is bad.) just a triggered reaction without any rationale behind this, with shorts being associated in people's minds with being shorter than those depicted and therefore immodest.

I'm unconvinced.

That flip-flops and certain types of shorts look gαy. I grant that. But the shorts worn by the boys in the OP's picture do not fall into that category ... IMO.

Whether something is effeminate or not can be argued, and it's partly a subjective thing. Some of that is culturally-relative. I personally find kilts to look effeminate, but that's due to my cultural perception that that style of dress is proper to women. I find some of the extremely flowery uniforms of Eastern European men to be somewhat effeminate. Some cultures considered being clean-shaven to be inherently effeminate. That's why missionary priests invariably grow beards, because they tend to be perceived as effeminate girly-men by the natives and would never be taken seriously or respected. I honestly had a difficult time with the cassock because in the U.S. the perception is that you're wearing a dress, and with all the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Novus Ordo presbyters out there, this was rather uncomfortable for me. I wore pants underneath and had a cassock just short enough that you could see the bottom of the pant legs. Now, if you were in Europe, everybody recognizes what you're wearing. But in the U.S. the perception is one of effeminacy. I know that the Nine (and their descendants) don't wear cassocks in public, saying that it was the custom in the U.S. for priests and clerics to wear pants. But the SSPX imported European customs into the U.S.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #172 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:40:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 21, 2020, 06:21:09 PM

Not only do boys grow out of their pants, but my boys invariably shred the knees on their pants. We did the same when I was in Novus Ordo school. This was so common that they actually issues a few knee patches with each pair of uniform pants.

Yep! I had several pants that my mother patched for me. Now they actually buy jeans already ripped up and pay big bucks for them! 🤪

Ladislaus · « **Reply #173 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:49:29 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 21, 2020, 06:37:49 PM

It is not acceptable for Christian men to go about their daily business in sportswear or other scanty clothing that covers the body little more than the clothing of savages.

You seem to be missing (ignoring?) two key points here: "go about their daily business" and "other scanty clothing." These shorts were not scanty, nor were they worn to go about daily business ... but rather so that they could run competitively. No, they should not wear shorts around on a regular basis, but to wear shorts that basically cover the knee just for a sports competition? Not the same thing.

That was also the accusation about women wearing "pants". I said that it may be permissible to wear modest pants given various activities that might be dangerous or cuмbersome ... during the course of that activity per modum actus ... as per the Canon Law term I learned earlier in the thread, or due to other practical considerations, say, to wear pants beneath a skirt when it's very cold out. I never said that it was OK in general. I also think that exceptions can be made for some culotte styles, the ones that basically LOOK like dresses, except that there's a slit in the middle to help with leg movement. There's nothing masculine about many of those types of "pants", and many of them are very loose and are not tight-fitting so as to be immodest.

I mean, nobody would confuse this (below) with a pair of pants or consider it to be masculine. Any man wearing something like that might rightly be suspected of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #174 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:54:36 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 21, 2020, 06:49:29 PM

That was also the accusation about women wearing "pants". I said that it may be permissible to wear modest pants given various activities that might be dangerous or cuмbersome ...

So, for instance, I was a bit of a dolt in some respects when a young seminarian. I was once assigned the job of helping repair the barn roof on the seminary grounds. But I insisted on wearing my cassock. I was climbing a ladder hauling large steel roofing sheets up there in a cassock, and then fixing them to the roof. I could have easily stepped on my cassock climbing the ladder or tripped myself up and fallen off the roof, or caught a corner of the metal sheet on the cassock and tripped myself up that way. Of course, I did not wear my "good" cassock, but an old beat-up one that I saved for working in.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #175 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:58:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 21, 2020, 06:49:29 PM

You seem to be missing (ignoring?) two key points here: "go about their daily business" and "other scanty clothing." These shorts were not scanty, nor were they worn to go about daily business ... but rather so that they could run competitively. No, they should not wear shorts around on a regular basis, but to wear shorts that basically cover the knee just for a sports competition? Not the same thing.

That was also the accusation about women wearing "pants". I said that it may be permissible to wear modest pants given various activities that might be dangerous or cuмbersome ... during the course of that activity per modum actus ... as per the Canon Law term I learned earlier in the thread, or due to other practical considerations, say, to wear pants beneath a skirt when it's very cold out. I never said that it was OK in general. I also think that exceptions can be made for some culotte styles, the ones that basically LOOK like dresses, except that there's a slit in the middle to help with leg movement. There's nothing masculine about many of those types of "pants", and many of them are very loose and are not tight-fitting so as to be immodest.

I mean, nobody would confuse this (below) with a pair of pants or consider it to be masculine. Any man wearing something like that might rightly be suspected of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ:

You seem to be missing (ignoring?) the fact that the whole point of this conversation is whether or not there has been a change in SSPX teaching (or at least praxis) regarding shorts.

You also seem to be missing (ignoring?) that it was me who highlighted the final sentence of my quote from the booklet which conceded long shorts for athletic competition.

That was my way of saying "concedo" to you on that particular point, and also to demonstrate my good disposition (by the mere fact of having posted that which essentially concedes your argument regrding shorts for sports), despite your frequent accusations of dishonesty.

If I was dishonest, I could easily have let the quote lay hidden from the conversation.

On the other hand, as regards your comments on women and pants (i.e., it might be better for them to wear pants if they are undertaking work which would make femenine attire dangerous), I would question why women would undertake activities which cause them to have to masculinize themselves, and if only done by necessity, then I would note that exceptions do not disprove the rule, and the norm remains the norm.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #176 on:** January 21, 2020, 07:15:03 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 21, 2020, 06:58:52 PM

On the other hand, as regards your comments on women and pants (i.e., it might be better for them to wear pants if they are undertaking work which would make femenine attire dangerous), I would question why women would undertake activities which cause them to have to masculinize themselves, and if only done by necessity, then I would note that exceptions do not disprove the rule, and the norm remains the norm.

You're correct that exceptions do not disprove the rule, but they do prove that there can be exceptions.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #177 on:** January 21, 2020, 07:18:25 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 21, 2020, 06:39:26 PM

Nor do we have any context around this reported opinion. Are there exceptions, conditions, distinctions? Would he even consider pants that just extended to below the knees to be "shorts"?

I'm just looking for a rational argument.

So far we have:
1) Bishops Williamson said boys should not wear them (no context around what he said and it's his opinion for reasons unknown to us).
…. But the shorts worn by the boys in the OP's picture do not fall into that category ... IMO.

Why do you keep twisting what I said Bp. Williamson said by applying it to children? He said that shorts are the attire of children, and that men should not wear shorts. He didn't say that boys should not wear shorts, he said that shorts were the attire of children. Also, you keep calling those men in the OP picture "boys", when they are at least young men, for they all have hairy legs and are well over 12 years of age.

This reminds me of something I saw myself - in the early 1970's, a large group of people on the beach decided to remove their bathing suits and go naked. They were from 3 years of age up to like 40. The police came and started a arresting people and an older bearded hippy said "at what age is nudity a crime man? What age are you going to start your arrest, at what age is it offensive to you"?

At what age is a child, a boy, considered a young man to you? To me, those are all at least young men, not one of them is a child/boy.

lapetitefleur · « **Reply #178 on:** January 21, 2020, 09:19:41 PM »

I went on Fr. Novak's pilgrimage. It was for All Souls day. He built an altar to offer two of the masses in cemeteries, and the third Mass was on the site of Fr. Kapaun's childhood home, where he specifically prayed (by name) for all those who had passed away in St. Marys since the start of the St. Mary's parish. We also prayed the litany for the poor souls in each cemetery we visited. It was really beautiful; pretty sure Fr. Novak won't be judged for offering requiem masses for the dead.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #179 on:** January 21, 2020, 09:25:25 PM »

Quote from: lapetitefleur on January 21, 2020, 09:19:41 PM

I went on Fr. Novak's pilgrimage. It was for All Souls day. He built an altar to offer two of the masses in cemeteries, and the third Mass was on the site of Fr. Kapaun's childhood home, where he specifically prayed (by name) for all those who had passed away in St. Marys since the start of the St. Mary's parish. We also prayed the litany for the poor souls in each cemetery we visited. It was really beautiful; pretty sure Fr. Novak won't be judged for offering requiem masses for the dead.

That's all great and everything, but did he say Mass on the hood of a Jeep, without necessity?

Poll

Do you see anything wrong with an "Ora Pro Nobis" Harley, Academy boys running in shorts, or Mass on a Jeep hood without necessity?

Author Topic: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report (Read 7807 times)

tdrev123

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

SeanJohnson

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Ladislaus

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Last Tradhican

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

SeanJohnson

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Ladislaus

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Ladislaus

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Ladislaus

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

SeanJohnson

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Ladislaus

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

Last Tradhican

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

lapetitefleur

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report

SeanJohnson

Re: Pics from the Latest Rorate Coeli Report